I personally would be for using alternate sources of energy, but not mostly wind and solar. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and we should start using it to replace our demand for oil. The reserves would last for hundreds of years, so we would have a reason to switch to a more plentiful fuel supply for a short term solution. As important the environment is, it will take a back seat to economics.
In the long term, we should begin replacing coal power for nuclear. Despite its bad reputation, modern nuclear reactors would be a better investment for energy demands. The biggest issue is not that nuclear plants are expensive to operate, they are expensive to build... resulting in high interest payments that must pay for the powerplant before it is decommissioned. If you didn't account for the initial investment, a nuclear plant would cost a fraction that of a coal plant to operate. Even today, nuclear plants rival coal in economics and the environmental impact is almost negligible. As for nuclear weapons... it is very simple to monitor nuclear plants because any attempt to extract plutonium would be to obvious to do in secret.
Although I would favor wind and solar power more than even nuclear, the US energy grid must have at least 80% of its sources to be stable for it to be reliable. Wind turbines often get more power that they can't store and don't generate when the wind doesn't blow.
Overall, the US should start investing in nuclear with the expectation that it would eventually replace oil. As of today, coal would be the best short-term solution.